Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

I’ll be damned if I agree to George being the culprit of the story. It’s far too third-rate!!

There was an interesting notion that while George is good at martial arts, most of the murders are done with guns. It could just be to hide the real culprit though.

I'm not entirely denying it.
George would sometimes be an accomplice, because of Shannon. I thought he could be a culprit in EP3 too, because Eva-Beatrice is basically Eva's greed which she pushed onto George, by her own words. If Eva-Beatrice hints at George's motive, and some of his darker nature was shown in EP4, there is still some basis to suspect him. Remember, if we got all the evidence only in EP6, that's too late for all of the crucial hints being given in EP4.

Btw, a little question if I may. Thanks to the discussions up till now, almost all the magic-side meta-characters had been established to have some kind of basis in the real-world be it an aspect, a character, or whatever. However, I can't seem to remember what the goats were based on in the real world. Anyone have a thought?

I’ll be damned if I agree to George being the culprit of the story. It’s far too third-rate!!

There was an interesting notion that while George is good at martial arts, most of the murders are done with guns. It could just be to hide the real culprit though.

I'm not entirely denying it.
George would sometimes be an accomplice, because of Shannon. I thought he could be a culprit in EP3 too, because Eva-Beatrice is basically Eva's greed which she pushed onto George, by her own words. If Eva-Beatrice hints at George's motive, and some of his darker nature was shown in EP4, there is still some basis to suspect him. Remember, if we got all the evidence only in EP6, that's too late for all of the crucial hints being given in EP4.

I don't really like the reasoning in this article. It didn't mention many scenes to back up it's points. I disagree on a couple of them too, howver most of the characterization is consistent. But I can understand why they think that way.

My biggest gripe would be with point two because it's actually wrong. He does have plenty of knowledge there.

Oh yeah, you had a George culprit theory.
I also noticed the article missed something, like George actually knowing something about magic. That show-off thing in your article seems intriguing too. Though the murders might have been planned by Beatrice/Shannon/Yasu I think, as she wrote the message bottles.

But the thing is, he's shown to be compassionate and what can the family even actually do to stop Shannon and George getting married? Unless all characterization of him being wrong, he being maybe mentally ill, I can't see it happening. But there are things that really support it.

There is not enough motive, at least not before the Core Arcs, as I mentioned.

Well it doesn't end with him being Married. He has an entire future planned in his head as well as he shows in episode 6. He just plans it the opposite way that Jessica does. As for him being compassionate I said the that characterization was consistent. I think it was Kyrie who mentioned how easy it was for love to turn into hate. So I believe change in circumstances can result in a change in character. If it's needed.

If you were to rule out that motive because you think it's third rate I think you would have to rule out some of Kyrie's motives too. However given what I've heard about episode 7 I don't think you can say that's any better.

If you were to rule out that motive because you think it's third rate I think you would have to rule out some of Kyrie's motives too. However given what I've heard about episode 7 I don't think you can say that's any better.

Yeah, though that wasn't my own wording and it was just to wrap it up. I've heard fishy things about the Kyrie thing too. Maybe they're all second-rate?

Are you sure they're just alternate universe doubles? What if Ryukishi is going for a continuous narrative behind the scenes of the main events of Higurashi and Umineko? You can't really be sure of Amakusa's age from the sprite, though I too think he's quite young.

It's literally impossible for Higurashi and Umineko to be in the same universe. Higurashi is a novel in Umineko, and Higurashi is a universe where Japan hasn't yet fully integrated into the Gregorian Calender.

Quote:

Actually what I used to think was this (regarding Battler's sin):

What is called "Battler's sin" is something he told Shannon six years before the game began. This can either be "I will return next year on a white horse" or "I prefer busty blondes". Either way, what he told her upset her and created the alternate personality "Beatrice".

However, this is not what caused the murders. George, being in love with Shannon, couldn't stand to see Battler flirting with her.

If you believe George to be the culprit, then

George goes and plots the murders six years later. The failure in his love life, coupled with feelings of frustration from his mother's orders, causes George to become mentally unstable.

Otherwise,

He tells somebody else and this person does something else and SOME STUFF HAPPENS and people die.

Shannon notices George's sadness and blames everything that happened on "Beatrice", the one fantasy personality that she associates with Battler.

I would amend this, as EP7 seems to press that Multiple Personalities isn't involved, and 'Shannon' is just playing elaborate games of pretend with herself. Beatrice also was in the works as an identity more or less before Battler's sin to some degree.

This fails at the second premise. George displays occult knowledge in interactions with Maria. I didn't read any further since it made a false red.

Quote:

Btw, a little question if I may. Thanks to the discussions up till now, almost all the magic-side meta-characters had been established to have some kind of basis in the real-world be it an aspect, a character, or whatever. However, I can't seem to remember what the goats were based on in the real world. Anyone have a thought?

They seem to be generally just "generic mooks when we need a lot of numbers" with no necessary greater meaning. Though I do like to think that since they were introduced around the time Kanon was being treated as the culprit by the humans on the board, that they might introduce scapegoating. And since they also appear as masks, they might represent anonymity.

Quote:

But the thing is, he's shown to be compassionate and what can the family even actually do to stop Shannon and George getting married? Unless all characterization of him being wrong, he being maybe mentally ill, I can't see it happening. But there are things that really support it.

To be fair, he's been characterized as being willing to kill people, coldly and ruthlessly, in order to secure what he wants on more than one occasion in Fantasy scenes. The only other human character this applies to is Kyrie.

To be fair, he's been characterized as being willing to kill people, coldly and ruthlessly, in order to secure what he wants on more than one occasion in Fantasy scenes. The only other human character this applies to is Kyrie.

Yes, but does he actually have a proper motive? Hate for her mother? Loving Shannon? But Shannon actually gets killed. Unless George is really okay with "Happiness in the Golden Land", but I don't see George as someone so desperate.

Unless Shannon sets up the bomb to kill George once she realizes she's helping a horrible murderer? And because she loves him, she aims to cover it up. You've given me some food for thought again...
A problem is posed by the message bottles. If they were written before the incident and the crime blamed on Beatrice, the bomb must have been planned beforehand. So if Shannon helps George, she must be doing it knowing someone's going to die, at least at some point.

From one thing to another, has anyone thought what I thought reading EP5 a second time? What if Kumasawa is posing as the man from 19 years ago, on the phone? She has been shown to have good acting skills, and she could have been calling to Natsuhi from her room in the guest house without anyone noticing. In other words, after Kumasawa returned to the guesthouse, she never went to the second floor until morning.
Maybe Krauss was held hostage there too, though Kumasawa herself is unlikely to capture him.

Yes, but does he actually have a proper motive? Hate for her mother? Loving Shannon? But Shannon actually gets killed. Unless George is really okay with "Happiness in the Golden Land", but I don't see George as someone so desperate.

Truth be told, there's little to no chance of there being a single murderer for every Game. What matters here is the guy who killed everyone in Rokkenjima Prime. The fact that Shannon dies in some games doesn't absolve George of suspicion (especially since there's always the possibility of Shannon being an accomplice that someone kills in self defense or something).

I'm not saying George is the culprit or anything, but he IS capable of murder.

Quote:

Unless Shannon sets up the bomb to kill George once she realizes she's helping a horrible murderer? And because she loves him, she aims to cover it up. You've given me some food for thought again...
A problem is posed by the message bottles. If they were written before the incident and the crime blamed on Beatrice, the bomb must have been planned beforehand. So if Shannon helps George, she must be doing it knowing someone's going to die, at least at some point.

To add on to this chain of thought, what if Shannon suspected that George was going to murder everyone, and is unable to confront him about it? She sets up the bomb to go off by the end of the conference with the intent to shut it off if she can stop him (or whoever actually is up to anything), but she's either killed or prevented from being able to do anything....and she's the only one who knows about the bomb....

It's literally impossible for Higurashi and Umineko to be in the same universe. Higurashi is a novel in Umineko, and Higurashi is a universe where Japan hasn't yet fully integrated into the Gregorian Calender.

The Higurashi that exists within the Umineko universe could be a fictionalized account of real events. For that matter, it might be completely different from the Higurashi we have. Also, Japan still uses era names today. So, the Higurashi universe's use of them is hardly noteworthy.

The Higurashi that exists within the Umineko universe could be a fictionalized account of real events. For that matter, it might be completely different from the Higurashi we have. Also, Japan still uses era names today. So, the Higurashi universe's use of them is hardly noteworthy.

That wouldn't be very noteworthy either because there is an actual village in japan with similar events that Hinamizawa is based off of. In Umineko's context it would be a lot like real life in that sense.

The Higurashi that exists within the Umineko universe could be a fictionalized account of real events. For that matter, it might be completely different from the Higurashi we have. Also, Japan still uses era names today. So, the Higurashi universe's use of them is hardly noteworthy.

So, basically, "Umineko and Higurashi are in the same universe. Except Higurashi never happened, and the book Battler read might be nothing like the anime/VN we saw/read. And it's not noteworthy."

I’ll be damned if I agree to George being the culprit of the story. It’s far too third-rate!!

There was an interesting notion that while George is good at martial arts, most of the murders are done with guns. It could just be to hide the real culprit though.

I'm not entirely denying it.
George would sometimes be an accomplice, because of Shannon. I thought he could be a culprit in EP3 too, because Eva-Beatrice is basically Eva's greed which she pushed onto George, by her own words. If Eva-Beatrice hints at George's motive, and some of his darker nature was shown in EP4, there is still some basis to suspect him. Remember, if we got all the evidence only in EP6, that's too late for all of the crucial hints being given in EP4.

Those arguments in that blog are really, really bad.

Most of his points are flat-out wrong. Like George having no occult knowledge.

Quote:

Yes, but does he actually have a proper motive?

Yes. Assuming Rokkenjima prime and Yasu being Shannon, there are many, many motives you could come up with.

Also Jesus Christ, that blog you are using as evidence makes some of the worst arguments I have ever seen. I know the mods want us to calm down, so I must state I'm not trying to be rude. It's just that it's seriously awful reasoning.

Look at that bastardization of the rules. First of all, the writer seems to be trying to use a misguided version of the Socratic method to prove his point.

His first argument is that the story doesn't follow Van Dine's rules. Congratulations Mr.Author, welcome to episode 5.

Now that we are past that, let's go to his ''brilliant'' argument. BECAUSE OBSERVERS MAY LET THEIR CONCLUSIONS BE HEARD, THEN IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THEY ARE DENIED IN RED.

Very well. Now let's put this claim to a test:

"Because I can claim anything and say it out loud, it has the right to be a possibility, even if it's impossible given the game's context."

Test #1:

Michael Bay is the culprit. He killed everyone. He was filming an overly realistic film. His accomplice was Kinzo. They are friends. This was foreshadowed by the fact that they are both insane. This explains the over the top special effects, the explosion at the end, and the re-shootings known as episodes.

Test #2:

I claim that Jim Carrey is the killer.

See how ridiculous his argument is? It makes no sense. Moreover, his analysis of the Van Dine rules are just not very good.

So, basically, "Umineko and Higurashi are in the same universe. Except Higurashi never happened, and the book Battler read might be nothing like the anime/VN we saw/read. And it's not noteworthy."

What a tautological and self-voiding statement.

I never said that Higurashi never happened. I simply said that the account Battler read was fictionalized (after all the people in Higurashi who know the truth are either trying to cover it up or are dead). Alternatively, the book Battler read is nothing like what we read/watched (which would explain, why for example, he doesn't wonder why Bernkastel looks like and has the same name as a fictional character).The only part I claimed wasn't noteworthy was Higurashi's use of Japanese era names.

Alternatively, no work called Higurashi exists within the world of Rokkenjima-prime.

I never said that Higurashi never happened. I simply said that the account Battler read was fictionalized (after all the people in Higurashi who know the truth are either trying to cover it up or are dead). Alternatively, the book Battler read is nothing like what we read/watched (which would explain, why for example, he doesn't wonder why Bernkastel looks like and has the same name as a fictional character).The only part I claimed wasn't noteworthy was Higurashi's use of Japanese era names.

Alternatively, no work called Higurashi exists within the world of Rokkenjima-prime.

Well of course it's fictionalized it's a fictional novel in his universe. And in that universe he's a fan of mystery novels.

Why would you argue for it's canon continuity in a shared universe while offering an alternative where the contents of the Higurashi novel are completely different from what you're trying to insert into it? Think about that. How does that make sense?

Well of course it's fictionalized it's a fictional novel in his universe. And in that universe he's a fan of mystery novels.

Why would you argue for it's canon continuity in a shared universe while offering an alternative where the contents of the Higurashi novel are completely different from what you're trying to insert into it? Think about that. How does that make sense?

Like AuraTwilight said it's a self voiding-statement.

The events of Higurashi happened and Battler read a fictionalized account of those events (i.e. a fictional novel based off of a true story).

Alternatively, the events of our Higurashi happened and Battler read something completely unrelated that happened to be called Higurashi.

Alternatively, the events of Higurashi happened in the world of Rokkenjima-prime, and no work called Higurashi exists in that world.

1) So then what's in this fictionalized account? In what way is Higurashi even an noteworthy event if, as far as anyone in that universe should know, it never happened due to cover-ups and supernatural timey wimey balls?

2) Why bother calling it Higurashi if it has nothing to do with Higurashi?

3) If the events of Higurashi happened in the world of Rokkenjima-Prime and no work based on it exists, then why did the message bottles' author mention a Higurashi novel in their writings?

1) So then what's in this fictionalized account? In what way is Higurashi even an noteworthy event if, as far as anyone in that universe should know, it never happened due to cover-ups and supernatural timey wimey balls?

The cause of Hinamizawa's destruction was covered up, not the destruction itself. And the various deaths prior to 1983 probably weren't covered up anymore then the already hadbeen. As for the supernatural timey wimey ball, I'll admit that the events of Matsuribayashi-hen can not take place in the same world as Umineko. However, one of the other arcs could have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

2) Why bother calling it Higurashi if it has nothing to do with Higurashi?

I don't pretend to understand Ryukishi07's motives. But, if the in-universe Higurashi is like ours then Battler's failure to notice that Bern strongly resembles a fictional character is rather odd, as is the presence of Okonogi.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

3) If the events of Higurashi happened in the world of Rokkenjima-Prime and no work based on it exists, then why did the message bottles' author mention a Higurashi novel in their writings?

She thought it would be a good name for a mystery novel, and it would also serve as a hint that it wasn't a completely true story.

Just to be clear, by "events of Higurashi" I mean the events of one arc of Higurashi, not every arc or some hypothetical Hinamizawa-prime.

I'll add another possibility.

4) The events of Higurashi happened in the Umineko universe. Furthermore, the Higurashi Battler read was identical to what we read (except it was a standard novel rather then a series of visual novels). The author was a witch who was able to find out about events that happened in other universes using her witch magic.

Battler's sin was long hinted to be a promise, the problem is that ep7 comes out of the blue and makes it a conditional promise, which mucks up everything. It's no longer Battler saying "I will do x" and then not doing x; that at least is an obvious "sin" because it's a promise to do something that isn't followed up on.

However, it's in the form of "when you do y, I will do x." Nothing prior to ep7 suggests this specifically, but neither is such a thing discounted. The problem here is that it absolves Battler of partial responsibility for the sin. Until Yasu does y, he's under no obligation to do x. The only way she can really force him into a position where he can "break his promise" is to perform her end of the bargain and make him somehow aware of it. That is, if the actual act of breaking the promise is in fact the sin, and not making it to begin with or somesuch. There have been other proposals I won't go into, just pointing out that there are several.

So the issue here is, why did Ryukishi set things up this way? People had already basically guessed the context of the promise. And it seemed to make sense. Throwing in a conditional is mucking up his own narrative. I can't think that was an accident as it takes an extra step of thinking about the "sin" to even complicate a promise that way. So what the deal, man?